You are on page 1of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINAL MARCELLIUS BOYD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:09-cr-00198-JFA-1; 0:11-cv-02235-JFA)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and


Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 29, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginal Marcellius Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.


Jeffrey Mikell
Johnson, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Reginal Marcellius Boyd seeks to appeal the district
courts orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
Supp. 2012) motion, denying his Rule 59(e) motion and denying
his motion for reconsideration.
unless

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The orders are not appealable


judge

issues

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


the denial of a constitutional right.
(2006).

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

courts

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.


Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the


denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude


that Boyd has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED